Tanz

Some of the shareholders are part of larger groups of people that invest in their companies, and then in turn, they invest in companies like Twitter. The fiduciary responsibility is to make money for their clients. If they don't take the sale while they can, their clients will lose money in other things, and their financial institution will have broken their #1 rule. Always make money for your clients when you can. This is a big reason why companies lobby and bring in politicians that will do policies that favor their companies. We live in a dirty world, and it's not so cut and dry. However, if you think Elon Musk is "evil" or "bad", those people that allowed him to take over the company are at least as bad as him or even worst because they act anonymously. Lawyers get hired by miserable people, and their professional and moral professional responsibility is to help their clients win, even if they did the crime. If they do not defend their clients, the whole profession collapses, and no one would ever hire lawyers for anything; the economy would be jeopardized because the lawyer's responsibility is to protect rich people. The entire ecosystem creates medicine, better cars, and whatever shit makes people's lives better. The ethical thing for a lawyer is not to work for big firms and help the little guy, but then they would make less money, and with less money, they would have less financial power to make a difference or to donate to a cause they believe in. However, if you defend a wealthy pedophile, you can provide clean water for 500,000 people. That, in turn, can save more children compared to the 100s of kids molested by that sick, rich mother fucker. The same logic is used in medicine with animals getting tortured. All our hands in covered in blood one way or the other. In and Out Burger only has outlets in the west coast; they make significantly less money than macdonalds and yet everyone dumps money in In and Out, making them worth more than Macdonalds. Obviously that's not the reality, but if we were to use the analogy, that would happen. Tesla sells 1 million cars worldwide, Toyota sells 12 million, yet Tesla is worth more; it makes no sense, but that's the reality. In fact, Tesla is worth more than BMW, Mercedes, Ford, they are the most valuable auto manufacturer in the world, and it's not based on logic or reality, but rather speculation.

Not at all; they have users, lots of them, that's worth more than the actual income they earn from ads. Even if they made a loss every year, they are mining so much valuable data, magnitudes more than the company is worth. He gave an extreme highball offer based on the metrics we understand from what they tell us in revenue. Still, the data they acquire daily can produce valuable AI technology, for example. The shareholders knew the stock market would tank, so they sold the company while it was worth more. They got a good deal and now are sitting on so much cash. Musk got what he wanted: control over a platform he loves and probably access to data that could make it more than he paid for the company in the next several years. They would not have sold to him if they were romantic over their morals and kept the company because of its influence over such a broad audience. I am unsure if Musk believes in what he says about free speech, but I am sure he bought the company based on how much money he can make later on. He may be many things, but he's no fool when it comes to making money. The liberals that claim to hate him so much bought tons of Tesla stocks. Tesla is valued much higher than automobile companies that produce 10x per year. In other words, Tesla is overvalued but his ability to sell people and believe in him is astounding. It's like if someone convinces that in and out burger is so valuable that it becomes more valuable than Macdonalds, which have outlets worldwide.

It wasn't "let." The shareholders sold it to him at an insane price. When he tried to back out of the deal they chased him down and forced him to buy it in court. They could not reject the money, every one of them. If they really believed in their platform, they would not have sold. All the money people in silicon valley are libertarians; money is their real ideology. The employees who don't have any power at all are liberal. Musk gets his way because people are greedy They get paid incredibly well that's why.

Definitely lack of self-love comes in all shapes and sizes in every conceivable way.

Teachers can only help you a fraction of the way, maybe 5 or 10 percent. Maybe Adyashanti has taken psychedelics but is too scared of being judged, for it might alienate his zen community. I find him one of the better teachers on the list; even then, they can only help you so far compared to the following teachers. We are talking about the difference between masterbators(teachers) vs. an actual vagina (God in infinate incarnation)

Its probably better to assume this is an isolated case and not associate this with race, sexuality, political ideology, or group ideology.

Painfully I think he will get away without anything, and his base will rally even harder. The best thing the democrats can do is find someone like Obama or even 50% but they can't seem to find anyone, so they have to resort to attacking Trump. The DNC is paying hard for their mistake of sabotaging Bernie Sanders.

People like Trump will take advantage of overlooked groups as long as the left doesn't acknowledge its failures and the shadows of society that get outsourced to chaos. Andrew Tate is another one that takes advantage. Implementing Universal Healthcare and funding social support for broken families and mental health will be a good start.

@MarkKol If any of the social media companies do something egregious, then the government can hold them accountable but if tiktok does something egregious, there isn't anything the American government can do to them other than ban them. TikTok has the power to threaten democracy, it can incite violence, misinformation etc.. Will they do that? No one knows but it's within their power or a heavily followed personality to do that. Banning TikTok would be a preventative measure.

It didn't, but the failure is not acting out of compassion and love when the left calls itself the kind, loving side. True love requires sacrifice; it requires patients; it requires time, and money. If the shooter were my child, I would take responsibility for it by acknowledging my failure killed my child and 6 others. I would not blame the problem on the gun, the school, or the ideology of that school. On the side of the left, why isn't there funding for therapists for trans people? Couldn't we spend 300 million on therapists for trans around the entire country? We just sent 100 billion overseas to another country. If the shooter had just made at least one friend or one ear for them to be heard, then the act of violence could have been prevented. The film The Joker was so brilliant because, as an audience member, you hope there could be at least one caring individual to embrace Arthur. Still, he had no one, and when the character finally broke and decided to take things into his own hands, he took society down with him.

@Pure Imagination I grew up as a minority, I was very well aware every time a minority did something bad that, it would lead to a particular perception from the public that is incorrect. It's just human nature. Taking guns away or limiting them is undoubtedly a solution, but at the same time, it could lead to resentment. In these situations, rather than projecting our anxiety and frustrations on someone else on the left or right, it's better to look inside and admit our societal failures. This person didn't have a loving enough environment, so they didn't have the compassion and common sense not to harm people. The trans community failed to create a safe space for these individuals to work out society's angst against them. The left has no problem funding a war while not funding things that can catch these types of people that fall thru the cracks. If the left deems themselves more compassionate, their responsibility is much higher than those on the right who care about individual responsibility. This problem is everyone's problem and a failure on our part not to build loving, compassionate communities. These shootings are the backlash of a cold society. Marjorie Taylor Greene might be part of the problem, but she exists because we aren't doing enough. Removing guns is a solution, but the real solution requires much more love, energy, and personal responsibility. Even if we remove the gun from that person, they are still miserable, depressed, and suicidal. How do we make sure those things don't happen? I have enough faith in people to believe that people will randomly look for a trans person to assault because of a silly tweet.

Well, if the left were intellectually honest, the fact that the shooter is trans makes it as much of their problem as the right, who is pro-gun. This horrible event is a massive loss to all American people. Left or Right. Blaming the right to be transphobic for the shooting is irresponsible. Or blaming old fashion Christian values as an excuse for violence also isn't fair. I've been a victim of hate crimes before; I don't go around hating the race of the group that hated on me. The solution to reduce or end such horrendous crimes will take a lot of money and time to resolve because it will require people to invest in family and communities, something both left and right fail miserabily on.

@Blackhawk China removed religion when the ccp took over; it was a horrible idea because if you have been to Taiwan and China, you can see a noticeable difference between the mannerisms of Taiwanese and Chinese people. The Taiwanese are polite and a warmer, more outgoing version of what you can experience in Japan, while in China, people will walk right by a pedestrian that got hit by a car. Before the communist party took over, Buddhism and Confucianism were a centralized part of their culture.

It sounds like it makes sense, but inversely, if fewer cars were sold, more manufacturers would build cars to last longer. Toyota sales have dropped over the years because buyers' new car cycles have reduced because of low-interest rates; this disadvantages Toyota because they update their cars over a more extended period and focus on reliability rather than putting in the latest and greatest. Having bullet trains is also something America needs to work on. Theoretically, by pushing consumption, evolution progresses faster, but at the same time, the shadow part of capitalism slows down the growth of technology that could become better. Very much like Tesla almost going bankrupt multiple times because of lobbying until Toyota decided to bankroll them. Ironically, there is a lobby for EVs today, and Hydrogen technology is being stifled. According to an engineer I spoke to, if hydrogen progresses further into the future, someday, it may be possible for people to get fuel from water from the faucet or rainwater. They now have very large, sophisticated machines that convert water into liquid hydrogen gas. Imagine if they were to shrink it to the size of a diesel generator. Energy would be free. If we created a better system to exist, I think people would passionately work on solutions that make people's lives better. As of now, being greedy creates demand in the wrong ways. As of now, greed certainly seems like the best method to incentivize progress, but I am interested to see what can be done differently. It would be cool to pilot study a population of a few hundred thousand people to construct society differently. Intrinsic motivation is more effective for individual success, but there hasn't been any study or attempt to create it for a sizable population.

@Leo Gura That is certainly so, I wouldn't deny any of that. But at the same time, humans have something called an imagination, which lends to excessive greed and craving. Culturally we find it difficult to talk about these things and often deny their existence for fear of feeling uncomfortable. Like climate change deniers, EV-crazed people fall under the same biases as those they judge. A way to reduce suffering would be to buy a car every ten or even 20 years instead of buying 4 or 5 of them every ten years would be better for the environment, but that isn't a conversation that is had because it would make less money and be worse for the economy.

In conclusion, humans are the alpha predators of the planet, some more alpha than others, and as a collective, we suck. When we thrive, others suffer, if not other humans, than other animals. I believe the primary sin is consumption and greed.

@Hardkill That might be true, but the places where the most Asians are democratically-run states. I'm not trying to make a point about which side is better; I'm just making a point about how people feel when they are victims. My Asian friends in California and New York at least know of another Asian person getting mugged. There was an incredibly sad story about a Chinese couple driving on the highway in California, and two cars were shooting at each other. A bullet flies into a car and kills their baby. The crime wasn't directed toward Asians, but it reflects the state of California. The worst part of all this is they are thinking of giving a lesser punishment to the killers. https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/12/18/da-charges-3-in-death-of-fremont-toddler-shot-in-head-on-freeway-last-year It's fair to say the government as a whole is failing the country, and as things get worse economically, it will only get worse.

@hoodrow trillson well republicans are less compassionate and support tougher laws that punish criminals. If you get your ass beat and your belongings taken from you it's easier to understand why someone would begin to lean right. Clearly the solution is a lot more complex and will take a lot of work but the reality is people don't have the patients nor the time

@Swarnim Animals killed in the name of science is tremendous, too in regards to medicine is concerned. In some cases life-saving for humans, in other cases, it's used to give a man a boner. Even if you become a vegan you can not escape this unless you decide not to take any medicine at all and completely live off the land to lower your foot print.

The number of weapons they will have on the streets post-war and the devastation to their infrastructure will take them decades to build back. The best thing that can happen to the local people is they become part of NATO and then part of the EU so that the young people can get out of their countries and work in western Europe. If that does happen, many of the local people of countries like Italy, Germany, France, and any other country in the EU will be upset when Ukrainians take their jobs away. If Ukraine doesn't become part of the EU, there isn't any way they can rebuild their country on their own; this is why Zelensky wants America to send their soldiers to fight so badly to improve the odds of aid to build their country back. Europe can hardly hold up countries like Greece and the inclusion of a new country will cause more tension socially. If these things don't happen, it's almost better to let Russia win because Ukraine will become an unstable country run by gangsters/warlords like Iraq and Afghanistan. Tactically there hasn't been a country since South Korea that the allies successfully rebuilt. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all failures for those countries where the battlefield was located in. I don't think the world really knows how screwed Ukraine is in every scenario that can happen.

It's hard to determine if a protest work or not because it is easy for the opposing side to create people to cause chaos. A lot like how some assholes left piles of bricks in Southern California and New York during protests on both the left and right sides. I think with the age of the internet, not protesting in person might be a better option. How is that going to be achieved, not exactly sure, but it's clear the media does not cover protests as they are intended rather giving the public what they want them to see. Whether it's true or not this "shaman guy" is part of the government or not shows how hard it is to make a change and how easy it is for things to go the opposite as it is intended. America does not have a good history of "peaceful protest" ever. Usually violent and bloody to various degrees. If people were not so easily swayed and fooled, that shaman dude would have never gotten inside. The hundreds of other idiots were regular people that foolishly thought they can just march inside and do whatever the wanted to do.

@Leo Gura Michael Malice doesn't seem to have the right answers but he's onto something in regards to people governing themselves. I have to admit people are far from being organized but a lot can change in a decade time frame. Such as if small communities grow food and share with one another and create an alternative way of exchanging without government oversight. There are wealthy to upper middleclass neighborhoods in California that do not recieve funding at all from the government allowing them to choose which subjects and topics the kids can learn. Intelligently the ultra wealthy have figured it out such as SVB. The minute they fail the government bails them out over a weekend. REAL swift and fast. Malice has mentioned in a podcast some commentary on the right bitching and complaining why the left control tech and media. He mentioned that the right needs to do the same rather than complaining. He did mention something along the lines of them being more organized and intelligent. We can have the same train in thought to any problem. And the answer is going to be revolved around education and personal action. Something at this moment in time does feel distant in our lifetime. The masses indeed are selfish and lazy but a big part of me has to believe in tomorrow's children. A huge change in consciousness willl be required but can happen swiftly if people get desperate enough or if psychedelics become as readily available as weed.

Pfizer made an excuse if they released the patent, they would give up the technology, which can lead to the cure for any other diseases in the future, which would cost them more potential money in the future. I think that if they just open source such technology, it would create more net positive for humanity if they created a cure for cancer with mRNA technology. Part of me understands the need to protect corporate interests, but the technology was publicly funded and passed over to Pfizer. If I were in charge of healthcare, I would like to create a cap limit on how much individuals can profit from people's suffering. Bill Gates could have just said, I will talk to them and see what we can do. I don't think his motives are to make money but to protect his tribe. He's either too powerful and arrogant to listen to his PR team or they are just yes-men and don't really speak up against him to help him out. They don't make people the complete package, and I don't expect Gates to be crafty like Obama in his communication ability. Gates needs to either work on it or not appear publicly and focus on his charity. The problem is he wouldn't do that because a part of him wants to be recognized for his humanitarianism. I think it fair to say that most billionaires are wired in a way where they have an overwhelming belief that they deserve it more than everyone else. When a man has everything, the only thing left is he wants to be remembered.

He's pretty much pulling out the script of how he is against establishment and "they" are all after him. Its part of his marketing for his base in order for them to worship him as a "christ-like" figure

People love to hate CNN because their expectations are higher than something trashy like Fox. We can say the same for Gates; IF he adamantly urged Pfizer to release the patent on the vaccine after making billions on it already then people would sense he cares about doing the right thing more than making millions. He panders to wealth and power because he recognizes them as "his own". I know it's not his style to call out anyone but when I reporter asks you on national news it's easy to be a politician without being excessive instead, he quickly says strongly no to moralistic questions. lol that is a good point but I was just using an example. His popularity would increase if he was someone that is like Leonardo Dicaprio who womanizes and doesn't hide that he prefers younger women. Granted, women are more likely to jump at Dicaprio naked rather than Gates but there is a science to how people carry themselves, Gates doesn't happen to be one that knows how to do that well; that's kind of my point rather than saying he's a terrible person. Im not employing people to Bill Gates's level nor doing anything for society at scale, at the very least even if he has insidious intentions he's doing far more for people than the average person. As is any billionaire including Musk whom the left is attacking.